The
hidden subtext of yesterday's verse, in which attachment (sneha) is
opposed by the practice of detachment, continues into today's verse.

With
that in mind, we are required first of all to make our best guess of
the original text of the first pāda of today's verse, which is in
doubt. In making this guess, I am looking for a reading that

1. is as
close as possible paleographically to the old Nepalese manuscript;

2.
has an ostensible meaning that makes sense; and

3. contains upon
further digging additional hidden meaning, consistent with the
subtext of practising detachment.

A final 4th consideration that
can't be ruled out is corroborating or negating evidence from the
Tibetan and Chinese translations, though I have found the Chinese translation, while often interesting, to be unreliable.

The old
Nepalese manuscript for the first pāda has brūyāc-cāsmāsv-anākṣepaṁ,
which EBC amended only slightly to brūyāś-cāsmāsv-anākṣepaṁ
and translated “Say, without reproaching us.” Anākṣepam,
incidentally, is given in the MW dictionary as meaning, with a
locative object, “without reproaching” – but the dictionary
definition is itself referenced to Buddhacarita, as translated at that time by EBC.

EHJ
noted that the old Nepalese manuscript's reading is nonsense. EHJ
noted further that the Tibetan and Chinese translations were clearly
right in indicating that -kṣepaṁ is an inversion of -pekṣam.
The Chinese translation has 顧遺念我者.
One by one the character顧means
to reflect or look back on, 遺means
to bequeath or leave behind, 念means
mind, thought, or mindfulness, and我
means
me, and so the Chinese translation does indeed support the view that
the original text had a word from the root √īkṣ (to look at)
rather than from the root √kṣip (to hurt at).

Based on his reading of the Tibetan and
Chinese translations, EHJ amended the first pāda to
brūyāś-cāsmat-kṛtāpekṣaṁ and translated “And you should
say to the folk in Kapilavastu, who keep regard for me.” Retaining
EHJ's Sanskrit, PO translated “And tell the folks of Kapila-vastu,
who have affection for me.”

EHJ further noted that a very slight
amendment of the Tibetan translation (from byas to bcas) would give
cāsmasu sāpekṣam, which is closer paleographically to the old
Nepalese manuscript. Since sāpekṣa
(from sa + āpekṣā) has connotations of expectation and emotional
dependence, this reading strikes me as being the most likely to
fulfill all three (or all four) criteria listed above.

Both
the original asmāsu and the asmad of EHJ's text are plural, and EBC
took asmāsu as such ("us"). EHJ and PO, however, took asmad as the singular
“me” – presumably in the sense of the royal “we”?

If
asmāsu is to be taken as plural, to whom is "us" intended to refer?
The prince, Chandaka, and the horse Kanthaka, all of whom the townsfolk expected to return?

“Who
look to me with expectation” would seem to work better, especially
since the prince is ostensibly referring in the second half of
today's verse, with the words tad and asya, to himself – tyajyatāṁ
tad-gataḥ
snehaḥ ostensibly means “Let love for
him
be given up,” while śrūyatāṁ cāsya
niścayaḥ ostensibly means “And let his
resolve be heard.” Hence:

Let your love for
him be given up, and hear his resolve. (EBC)

Quit your love for
him and hear his resolve. (EHJ)

Give up your love
for him! Listen to his resolve! (PO)

Below the surface,
however, reading sāpekṣam
in the 1st
pāda invites the 3rd
pāda, tyajyatāṁ
tad-gataḥ
snehaḥ, to be read as an imperative directed at sitting-zen
practitioners – “Let the attachment to that be given up!” –
in which case that (tad) could represent any object of
expectation or emotional dependence, or could mean any [absract]
thing out there. In terms of what I was discussing yesterday, that (tad) could be VIP-hood, or any other result of the sort to which a deluded person attaches.

In the 4th pāda, similarly, asya (lit. “of this one” [gen. sg. mn.]) ostensibly means “the
prince's” but in the hidden meaning “of this one” might mean not
only of the prince but “of a man of the here and now” or “of a real
person” or “of the here-and-now itself.”

Also
in the 4th
pāda, as in very many other places in Aśvaghoṣa's writing, śru
might mean much more than hearing with the ears; it might mean
listening or learning with the whole of oneself in action – so
that the 4th
pāda also becomes a kind of instruction for sitting-zen – “Let
the purpose of one who is here and now be heard” ; “Let the
purpose of a buddha be transmitted through a total psycho-physical
act of listening.” Śrūyatām, “let it be heard,” in other
words, might mean “let the one-to-one transmission be continued.”

Finally
the word niścayaḥ (see also BC5.31, 6.19, 6.22, 6.27) which
ostensibly means resolve,
as per each of the three professors' translations, is also given in
the dictionary as purpose,
and positiveness.

Positiveness
was a virtue that Geoff Boycott picked up in his commentary yesterday
on the cricket – he said that he coached players to be as positive,
i.e. not tentative, in playing defensive shots as in playing
attacking ones.

Insofar
as niścaya means purpose, it might be said that after Bodhidharma
went to China, the central question in Chinese Zen was: when
Bodhidharma came from India what was asya niścayaḥ, “the purpose
of this man”?

Among
the better known answers are those of Taiso Eka, who made three
prostrations without saying anything, and Joshu Jushin who answered:
“The cedar tree in the garden.”

As
simple, and as complicated, as that.

Turning
back finally to the reality of test-match cricket, there may be no
realistic prospect of Australia, who are already two-nil down,
winning three tests on the trot and thus securing the ashes. That
being so, the challenge for the Aussie losers may be -- in showing
the never-say-die attitude for which Aussie
sportsmen are traditionally known – to give up attachment to the
result that folks down under expected them to achieve, and to let the
real meaning of positiveness be seen and heard.

"Sport" Gudo Nishijima once said to me "is sport. Sport is not life."

In response, an opponent of Gudo might point out that books are books. Books are not life. But that didn't stop Gudo from loving books, especially ones written by him!

In my book, for studying things like human expectation, attachment, and purpose there is no truer laboratory than sport. So there.

As Bill Shankly famously said, "Football is not a matter of life and death. It is more important than that."

ā- √ kṣip: to throw down upon
(loc.) ; to strike with a bolt ; to convulse , cause to tremble ; to
draw or take off or away , withdraw from (abl.) ; to chase or drive
out of a place (abl.) , disperse ; to put into (loc.) ; to point to
, refer to , hint , indicate